When Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky spoke yesterday at the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference, a supporter yelled: “Don’t drone me, Bro”, referring to Paul’s 13 hour filibuster demanding an answer from President Obama that he would never use a drone on an American citizen on American soil, a stunt which gave Senator Paul a lot of attention, and led to his promoting the idea of the likelihood of his Presidential candidacy in 2016.
Meanwhile, Texas Senator Ted Cruz showed just what a bully, and an arrogant, overbearing person he is, making himself very unpopular even among fellow Republican Senators with his loony absolute interpretation of the Second Amendment, and showing lack of respect for Senator Diane Feinstein, who lived through the carnage of the murder of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone in 1978. The fact that even Justice Antonin Scalia has stated that there are limits to the Second Amendment does not phase Senator Cruz, as he fancies himself to be a “constitutionalist”!
Both of these Republican Senators fancy that the nation is ready for their looniness—Paul, the libertarian, who wants to bring about a utopian world of little government in people’s lives; and Cruz, using Joseph McCarthy type demagogic techniques to create turmoil and mistrust, and also to throw a “firebomb” as a method to grab for more power and influence!
Both Senators are upstart freshmen, who are showing total ignorance and total disrespect for the institution of the Senate, and their style and methods are designed to promote their own ambition, but will have the effect over time, if not fought bitterly by sane elements, to destroy the Republican Party and its long, much of the time, respectable history and leadership!
The nation is NOT going to accept either Senator Paul or Senator Cruz as their Commander in Chief, as they both, in different and competing ways, are promoting anarchy and chaos in the political arena, and are both VERY dangerous!
As I have stated before, the progressive liberal left is going to show us who they fear most. Those they attack and vilify the most are those they don’t want to ever run against. Who knows maybe in 2016 the Republican Party actually does something original a runs with a Conservative candidate. The last time they did that was by coincidence 30 yrs ago and the Republicans won by 2 landslides!LOL!
Again you post the Ted Cruz has a looney interpretation of the Second Amendment and of Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in D.C. vs. Heller. So I will repost what I have already posted. Since I never learn I will make an attempt to explain Heller and why Sen. Feinstein is wrong. I know you will totally ignore the facts, the opinion of the SCOTUS and stand by Senators Feinstein ignorant talking points. But what the heck, in the end I enjoy it. Itâ€™s good exercise. She says she believes the Second Amendment wouldnâ€™t protect the right of Americanâ€™s to keep so-called â€œassault weapons,â€ however, Feinsteinâ€™s Bill would face serious constitutional challenge. The government is empowered to ban â€œdangerous and unusual weapons,â€ like machine guns and surface-to-air missiles, but not weapons â€œin common use at the time.â€ This would include so-called â€œassault rifles. The Second Amendment reads: â€œA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.â€
Supreme Court Justice Scalia, writing the majority opinion in the landmark case, D.C. vs. Heller, goes into great detail about the historical precedent, legal history leading up to the writing of the Second Amendment (as well as providing legal comparisonâ€™s in the early stateâ€™s constitutionâ€™s, early American law and law pre- & post-Civil War), and the historical context for the words used in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is a personal right. Justice Scalia notes, â€œNowhere else in the Constitution does a â€˜rightâ€™ attributed to â€œthe peopleâ€ refer to anything other than an individual rightâ€ (p.6 of the Opinion) . He further says that it is a natural right to self-defense that is â€œclearly an individual right,having nothing whatever to do with service in a militiaâ€ (p.20). The Court states that the Second Amendment is not unlimited: â€œLike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited â€¦ the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purposeâ€ (p.54).
Notably, the Court states that â€œdangerous and unusual weaponsâ€ may be lawfully limited, â€œthe historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.â€ (p.55). The key word is â€œunusual;â€ all weapons are inherently dangerous. Weapons that are unusually dangerous are lawful to limit under the Second Amendment. This is why we canâ€™t all own rocket launchers. However, there is more to it than just being unusual. Weapons that are in â€œcommon use at the timeâ€ are protected under the Second Amendment: â€œThe sorts of weapons protected were those â€œin common use at the timeâ€ (p.55). Scalia also states that â€œmodern developments â€¦ cannot change our interpretation of the rightâ€ (p.56). This also precludes the sometimes proposed argument that only muskets and single-shot pistols are protected by the Second Amendment; Scalia addresses this directly, calling the suggestion â€œfrivolous,â€ noting other rights are not interpreted in this manner (this is the point Senator Cruz was making to Senator Feinstein, which of course she didnâ€™t understand) and stating â€œthe Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the foundingâ€ (p.8). The Supreme Court also cites prevalence and popularity as relevant factors, specifically as they relate to handguns, â€œWhatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalidâ€ (p.57-58). Also noting that an entire class of arms may not be banned, â€œThe handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of â€œarmsâ€ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purposeâ€ (p.56).
The preempted argument that as long as other classes of arms are not banned, the ban of one class is permissible, â€œIt is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowedâ€ (p.57). It is clear from the Courtâ€™s remarks, that it is not permissible to ban an entire class of weapons that are popular and in common in use at the time.
Why is this relevant? Because semi-automatic rifles have been on the U.S. commercial market since 1903 (from Winchester and Remington) and are in broad use among law-abiding citizens for self-defense, target shooting, and sport. They accounted for about 40% of rifle sales in 2010. The AR-15 is the most popular model in America â€“ accounting for 5.5% of all U.S. guns manufactured in 2007 alone. There are millions in circulation. It has been popular since it was created in 1958. The semi-automatic civilian versions of AK-47â€²s have been popular for decades (Kalashnikov invented the rifle in 1947). FN FALâ€™s have been around since the 1950â€²s. Semi-automatic, so-called â€œassault riflesâ€ are a very popular class of rifle. There are literally millions of them in the various proposed ban of more than 150 named models (AR-15, AK-47, Mini-14, FN FAL, HK-91, AR-10, etc.)
Therefore the Feinstein ban would be unconstitutional. The Second Amendment protects popular classes of arms that are in common use at the time. So-called â€œassault riflesâ€ fit that description. The fact that gun violence is a problem doesnâ€™t justify violating the Constitution. The Court ruled â€œwe are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many â€¦ who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution â€¦ But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the tableâ€ (p.64). Feinstein doesnâ€™t think that her proposed ban would be unconstitutional. As Justice Scalia has explained in great detail, the Supreme Court rationale in the D.C. vs Heller case shows that sheâ€™s wrong and Senator Ted Cruz is correct. This should surprise no one that has any idea of who Senator Ted Cruz is. He is one of the most important constitutional litigators of our time before the Supreme Court. He is not a lunatic nor an extremist as the ignorant media tries to portray him, but one of the most intelligent and accomplished constitutional attorneys in the bar. As always the source, enjoy the reading: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf